Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stallman v. Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Highland

August 27, 2019

BRADLEY STALLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIDWEST BUILDINGS AND SUPPLY CO., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

          Bradley Stallman, Leesburg, Ohio, Pro se Appellant.

          Jason A. Snyder, Markesbery & Richardson, Co., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.

          Timothy B. Spille, Reminger Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees Donald and Virginia Warner.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          MATTHEW W. MCFARLAND, JUDGE.

         {¶1} This is an appeal from a Highland County Court of Common Pleas summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Appellees Donald and Virginia Warner hired Appellee Midwest Buildings and Supply Co. to construct a building. Appellant Bradley Stallman, an employee of Midwest Buildings and Supply Co., was injured during the construction of the Warners' building. Appellant sued Midwest Buildings and Supply Co., its employees, and the Warners for his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Midwest Buildings and Supply Co. and the Warners. After review of the record, we overrule Appellant's assignments of error on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         FACTS

         {¶2} Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.; Midwest Buildings and Supply Co.'s owner, Larry Brubaker; Midwest Buildings and Supply Co. employees, including Larry Maynard, and others (collectively hereinafter referred to as "MBS"); and Donald and Virginia Warner, the owners of the premises at 1939 Elmville Road, Leesburg, Ohio, in Highland County (the construction site).

         {¶3} Appellant alleged he was an employee of MBS and was injured while constructing a building for the Warners at the construction site. The complaint alleged that Appellant, Larry Maynard, and other MBS employees were erecting a wall, when one of the MBS employees released his grip, which caused the wall to fall on Appellant and caused him to suffer a severe leg injury.

         {¶4} Count one of the complaint alleged MBS, its named employees, and the Warners were negligent in failing to protect Appellant from injury by not properly securing the wall during the installation, etc. The complaint alleged that as a proximate result of this negligence Appellant suffered a serious injury.

         {¶5} Count two of the complaint alleged MBS employees were liable to Appellant through the doctrine of respondent superior because they were employees of MBS.

         {¶6} Count three of the complaint alleged an employer intentional tort against MBS was the proximate cause of Appellant's injury. The complaint alleged MBS knew or should have known that MBS employees were under the influence of drugs or alcohol that affected their work, that there was an insufficient workforce to safely perform the construction, that there was no safety equipment that secured the walls, and that there was insufficient equipment on the site to prevent the wall from falling. And, as a proximate result of these intentional acts, Appellant was seriously injured.

         {¶7} Finally, count four of the complaint alleged the Warners were liable to Appellant because they managed, controlled, and/or supervised the construction site. The complaint alleged that the Warners' failure to inspect the construction site created dangerous conditions and that they failed to warn of these conditions, thereby proximately causing Appellant's injuries.

         {¶8} MBS answered, asserting, among other defenses, that the doctrines of intentional tort and Bureau of Workers' Compensation claims barred Appellant's complaint.

         {¶9} The Warners answered, asserting, among other defenses, that Appellant's injuries were "the sole, proximate or substantial result of an intervening and superseding act of negligence over which [the Warners] had no control or responsibility" resulting in a "complete bar to plaintiffs recovery herein."

         {¶10} Both MBS and the Warners filed motions for summary judgment. Appellant filed a memorandum contra to both motions for summary judgment.

         {¶11} The trial court issued a decision and entry granting summary judgment to both MBS and the Warners. It is from this judgment that Appellant, now acting pro se, filed his appeal, which asserts seven assignments of error.

         ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ON BOTH SUMMARY JUDGMENTS.

         II. THE TRIAL COURT NEGLECTED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL IMPEDIMENTS, AND THE FACT THAT PARTIES WERE IN MEDIATION UNTIL NOV. 26, 3 DAYS BEFORE BREIF [SIC] COULD BE SUBMITTED, WITH MORE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.